Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phrase New Testament and urbanity refers to ways New Testament writings attest to practices and imagination of urban spaces and the ways urban spaces affected the practices and forms of imagination those documents describe. The phrase rests on a heuristic model of urbanity described by Rau (2020) as ‘a city-related phenomenon that materialises, takes spatial and temporal form. Taking spatial form means urbanity can emerge out of spatial practices and that these practices can also be translated into spatial structures. Taking temporal form means urbanity can emerge out of temporal practices and that these practices can also be translated into temporal structures – rhythms, for example.’ When applied to New Testament writings this heuristic understanding prompts us to ask, what role did religious actors, practices, and ideas found in the New Testament play in the emergence and ongoing development of cities and urbanity? What role did urban spaces and urban practices play in the emergence and ongoing development of Christ religions attested to by New Testament writings? How did spatial practices and forms mutually shape one another? What forms of temporality were expressed by that mutual formation? What urban rhythms arose, consequently? We refer to differing modes of urbanity, which is to say different kinds of relations and practices of urban spaces expressed through the various kinds of literature that constitute the New Testament (apocalyptic, gospel or sacred biography, types of letters, etc.), demography (ethnicity, economic power, social status), and the variety of imperial locations in which they were produced. The confluence of these elements resulted in rich spatial imagination and practices that reconceptualised urban spaces even as those spaces prompted forms of thought and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".